CubaSi publishes the preface of the book “Centrism in Cuba: Another Twist towards Capitalism” that will be launched today via Facebook Live.

As it reads the title, this book describes that political trend with increasingly prominence in the Cuban media environment, especially after the rapprochement between Cuba and the U.S.

President Barack Obama himself acknowledged that this old policy followed by Washington against Cuba for more than 50 years had failed.

If you follow recent events, you realize that traditional counter-revolution in Cuba, created and backed by successive U.S. administrations, had disappeared from the mass media until Trump brought them to life with his recent speech and thanks to major news agencies about Cuba.

Having Venezuela as their main target, major news agencies have dedicated to speak off “thawing” and Cuba as a tourist destination in recent months. Nonetheless, this new approach does not mean that Cuba faded away from the world news panorama. Instead, Cuba has taken a secondary role especially on the Internet where allegedly independent journalists are the target of their editorial, political interests.

Elier Ramírez visit CubaSi.

The retrograde speech of the Anti-Cuban mafia in Miami has been replaced by the portray of the Cuban reality proposed by “reformists or super revolutionaries” who seem to have discovered the absolute truth of what is happening in Cuba and what the faith of island should be.

After reading their texts, you can sense that these “centrists” —by using different literary, academic, or pure reporting styles— target a wide range of public, especially the revolutionaries. They are “experts” in highlighting their “non-confrontation” editorial line: the model of a failed socialism, pointing out its shortage, emphasizing on the economic field by comparing ours with those of developed countries.

Likewise, they now propose formulas to rethink socialism from new political and philosophical perspectives (multiparty system, constitutional and democratic reforms, electoral system, and the leading role of the Cuba’s Communist Party).

Likewise, centrists highlight the individual frustration before the political model as well as the inability to achieve his/her goals for the future, main cause of the migration in the country.

They criticize and attack the management of Cuban revolutionary institutions, especially those owned by the State, the government, and political organizations. They explicitly drift apart from government to trigger negative stereotypes on the intended public.

In line with Obama’s speech when he visited Havana, and having in common the private sector associated to an upper-middle class (according to their wealth), this sector owns a prosperous future and set them up to the State, which is represented as an obstacle to the personal growth of individuals inside the society (they grow “despite…” and not “thanks to” the State).

Cuban intellectuals visit Cubasi on the ocassion of the book launching: Enrique Ubieta.

They equally intend to highlight the existence of marginal spaces so they can portray a heartbreaking view caused by the abandonment and the mismanagement of the State and its institutions.

They insist on recalling and manipulate, again and again, prejudice or revolutionary measures adopted and overcome throughout time, especially issues related to homophobe (UMAP) and the cultural policy (Grey five-year period). They champion professional sports and call for the approval of laws allowing natural people and legal entities to be separated from State policies.

No need to say that these “centrists” are the champions of the so-called Third Way. A Third Way as an old trick of the bourgeois social democracy to calm the consequences of the excesses of the free market.

Paradoxically, the Third Way demands a rise in the regulation by the State of the inequality, corruption, marginalization, and other ills in the Capitalism. Meanwhile, these “centrists” look for an augment in the power of the market for the small or large private enterprise as compensation of the State power and excessive inclusion of Socialism. In two words, more capitalism.

Iroel Sanchez in Cubasi

But the “centrists” of the “Third Way” behave as inconsistently as an alleged impartiality in their publications. That press picks their information, which usually tackles negative elements. Talking about journalism, these “focused journalists and intellectuals” justify their “essential” informative mission with the “information gaps” of the revolutionary press. Actually, disoriented to the right, it is logical that they fill the agenda of the propaganda siege against the island. Therefore, they collaborate, consciously or not, with the oldest and most efficient of all Empire strategies: divide and rule.

It is hardly surprising that these “correspondents” attend to courses in countries like the U.S., Germany, or Netherlands; countries that seem to be worried about the information Cubans should receive. If the traditional counter-revolution —and some “centrists” as Raul Capote revealed in his article— was entertained by the USIS in Havana with dinners and meetings, the “centrists” are now having dinner in embassies that had never been worried about Cuba before. If there is an international delegation visit, there go the “centrists” to perform the welcoming ceremony and received a tap on their shoulders. Thus, these people pose as private political intermediaries.

Without apparent cause, some “centrists” reacted badly to Trump’s speech last June 16th. Two days after the speech, an AP press release noted: “When former U.S. President Barack Obama announced the restoration of the Cuba-U.S. relations in 2014, hundreds of people were encouraged to undertake press projects, private business like restaurants and guesthouses.”

Javier Gómez, accompanied by Giusette León, Journalist of Cubasi

Trump, by the way, championed —like Obama did— the help to the private sector (the “independent” media belong to this sector) despite his confrontation speech. And like centrists, he opposed State and Armed Forces from the people, as if they were antagonists.

This anthology of texts under the tile “Centrism in Cuba: Another twist towards Capitalism” deals with it and much more. This is a collection of 19 news articles published in blogs or Cuban media that we believe paramount to describe how the centrist option is being intended to create a mindset in the people. We also try to unmask the “new” trick with which they pretend to cause confusion among revolutionary readers.

As ebook, “Centrism in Cuba: Another Twist towards Capitalism” is a book on the making. Thus, this is a first look to the subject that may increase the number of pages or being printed or better; serve as a source for an audiovisual work.

In international media corridors of certain academic degree rather than inside Cuba, some have tried to spread the idea that a democratic centrist current is developing in the national political sphere. The aim is, in principle, artificial; a theoretical construction that is supported by dissemination outlets that do not elaborate too much on its foundations, but in the package of symptoms that join together when it is about Cuba.

From the strategic prospect with which conventional politics is handled today, not approaching the foundations, either your own ones or those of the adversary to defeat, is essential. This is the only way to enter into the so-called aestheticization of politics and make it an exercise of the trivialization of work for the improvement of society.

The current foundations of that artificial centrism are based on the so-called third political way, globally boasted by Tony Blair, though centered on five major points developed by sociologist Anthony Giddens, ideologist par excellence of this trend. The five points of Giddens are:

Dominance and implications of globalization

Trivialization of the meaning of left and right as political stances

Individualism as a framework for citizens’ goals

Degradation of all political mediations

Integration of ecological problems into social politics [1]

Its history dates much further back in time, when the European social democracy was looking for the most ethical solution, truly terrified by the progress of the revolutionary changes that left from the conceptions of Marx and Engels about the bourgeois state and that came true in the October Socialist Revolution, wise and ideologically led Lenin. So, the same way that Marx Weber proposed Protestantism as an option to the revolution encouraged by Marx, today’s third way seeks to rescue, with new pedigree, the contractual norms of capitalism, especially through the system of Political Parties that legitimizes class dominance, by means of a system self-called democratic par excellence.

Resorting to it today means that we acknowledge the dead end of the reforms made by global capitalism (for example, the so-called Welfare State or the economic projections by Keynes or Stiglitz), but we turn to the utopia of a better society through the same capitalism, which predates the world’s resources, the possibilities of economy (large consortiums increasingly concentrate ownership and industry) [2] and the exercise of political power (mediated by those same business monopolies). From the third way some try, above all, to discredit the possibility of changing the global political domination order that is based on the capital reproduction. Bourgeois state and concentrated capital reproduction are closely linked and dependent. Thus, they seek to neutralize any revolutionary possibility and guarantee the permanence of the social contract with the citizens. It is assumed, therefore, that class difference is inevitable and that society welcomes the most capable for adaptation. Socialism, for its part, proposes the disappearance of the state as the starting point for the new society, which would leave the contemporary property concept essenceless.

The focal points in successful individualism are in fact exceptional cases, as it is done with the legends of certain individuals who, thanks to the results of their professional management, have embarked on the path of capital concentration until they become millionaires with a lot of media follow-up and show business. Whether they are software programmers, artists or traders of cultural goods, they need to put into action what Meszaros called the social metabolism of capital. [3] Napoleon used to harangue his troop, assuring the soldiers that each of them had marshal's staff at his waist; he only had to win it in the battle. His soldiers won many battles, but, by the way, none of them carried the marshal’s staff. In short, it is a process of symbolic manipulation of the individual’s desires. Propaganda and consumption establish themselves as a goal of personal fulfilment to achieve that package of hopes that the cultural framework itself has sown through the pragmatic foundations of education.

Finally, the ecological plans, when they exist, respond to written regulations that varnish business predation and the indiscriminate extraction of the planet’s resources. Capitalism proposes it this way out of systemic necessity, so it is impossible to stop it with a package of regulations that ultimately fail. Trump’s Machiavellian idea to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement reveals, against the flow, the hypocrisy of this stance.

In Cuba, as if it weren’t enough, the tradition of social democratic ideas is almost null; [4] at present, these ideas have been assumed by some activists (most of them not very clear of their theoretical legacy or simply unfamiliar with their foundations) and some other intellectual who seek a less radical way to face the revolutionary change. The counterrevolution has in Cuba an outrageously ridiculous number of sympathizers and even a smaller number of people tempted to follow it. Centrist behaviors, in their huge majority, respond to Giddens’s third point, that is, they look for the solution to the problems individually. In concrete and in the ordinary Cuban way: I solve my thing and the rest have to strive for theirs.

Finally, the third-way tendencies that try to sneak into Cuba are linked to the tendencies of alternative socialism raised by the counterrevolution of the 20th century Cold War, in other words, the subversion that is camouflaged from the real socialist doctrine to gain sympathy among the revolutionaries themselves. Its dissemination passes through the financing coming from the US Treasury Department for what they call the program of democracy reinstatement on the island.In this extent, the resumption of diplomatic relations between Cuba and U.S. seeks the clear purpose of progressing in objectives unfulfilled by the economic blockade and media siege. This is what Obama said clearly, trying to achieve a post comeback to the good neighbor policy, together with the fashion carrot one and technological dazzling and, above all, looking for some reduction of the millions they get from US taxpayers with that goal.

Hence, the thought allied to democratic centrism has no other choice than to agree with Plattism. And Plattism is actually the contractual acceptance of US dominance and interference. Hence, moreover, that centrist thought is so aggressive with the Cuban revolutionary process –to the point of diagnosing as failure what is indisputable merit and socio-cultural gain– and chooses complicit silence in the face of the manipulation of points of open confrontation underlying the historical foundations of Cuban thought, according to black propaganda patterns.

The permanence of the economic, commercial and financial blockade, overwhelmingly condemned in the UN Assembly for successive years, is the fundamental example of this behavior, since it is often said that the blockade is a pretext and not the cause of most of the shortcomings of ordinary Cubans, such as access to a normal Internet connection, just to mention one example of its negative effects. The illegal existence of the Guantanamo Naval Base, fruit of the Platt Amendment [5], is yet another point this tendency tends to trivialize beforehand, turning its freshened Plattism into cynical indifference.

The sole idea of ​​democratic centrism reveals its character of artificial construction and propaganda, with which the cold postwar subversion seeks to gain further time to return to Cubans the perception that capitalist hegemony is inevitable and, therefore, is necessary to resort to a "lesser evil". Curiously ironic, because from that stance some attack the measures of mixed economy that the updating of the economic model puts into practice, calling them centrists, while at the same time they criticize the rules for regularization and control, calling them backwardness and excessive exercise of political power.

This centrism, tropical and immediate, laboriously sneaked among the youngest sector, and consistent with its aim to return to the Political Parties system, shows itself as an electoral program attempt rather than a social platform of some future prospect, at least if it depends on its own precepts and not on some external force that places it "above society", as in the bourgeois state. One of the proofs of this is to see the scope of their arguments in the manipulation of symptoms, that is, their way of diagnosing the shortcomings and needs of Cuban society.

The consensus of conceptual judgment reached by centrism is prior to the fact itself, which does not harmonize in any way with the balance, which its theories allude to. Once again said in the ordinary Cuban way: the same old thing; although, of course, with sources that are not very clear, relatively generous funding, and a new technological appearance.

For some time now has been brewing, essentially in the digital media, the idea of a “political centrism” in today's Cuba as part of the United States strategies to subvert the Cuban socialist pattern, despite the huge failures and slandering of the so-called “Cuban counterrevolution”. (i) A piece of news revealed by Wikileaks in 2010, showed as Jonathan Farrar, Head of the Interests Section of Washington in Havana back then, informed to the Department of State on April 15, 2009 how that "opposition" was really disconnected from the Cuban reality, it didn't have any influence power over the youths, and was more concerned about the money than in taking its platforms to wider sectors of society. (ii)

The political centrism in its origin is a concept of geometric root: the equidistant point to all ends. Supposedly it would be a political position placed between the left and right, between socialism and capitalism, a third way that "brings together the best ideas" in the ends that give it life and where moderation rises against any type of radicalism. Lenin qualified this posture of “treacherous utopism as a result of the bourgeois reformism". No doubt those denominated third ways, or centrisms have never been a revolutionary option, but strategies to establish, save, remake, modernize or restore capitalism.

When moderation is reconsidered in front of the Cuban revolutionary radicalism – this means going to the roots, nothing related to extremism which is another thing - (iii), I can’t help but finding certain analogies between that centrism that today is attempted to articulate in Cuba, with the nineteenth century autonomism.

The autonomism as a political trend was born in the first half of the XIX century, but it becomes a political party starting since 1878, as one of the fruits of the revolution of 1868. (iv) It was a trend that shared historical time with independentism, traditionalism, and annexionism. It was the trend par excellence of moderation, of evolution, enemy of the radical Cuban independentists. They also took a position "equidistant", between the traditionalism - the defense of the status quo - and the independence, but in defining moments, they joined traditionalism to brake and attack the revolution, which they considered the worst of all evils. Famous personalities of autonomism turned to annexionist ideas after the North American intervention-occupation in Cuba. Its main leaders were recognized for their intellectual skills, they were great speakers, but with an elite thinking, essentially bourgeois, therefore they could never rallied Cuban masses behind them. The Cuban people back then what needed the least was laboratory ideas. It was for this reason that when the struggle for independence restarted in 1895, the autonomist party was completely out of place in new national reality. The autonomism defended a moderate nationalism that excluded the masses. Their main goals was not severing the bond with "the Spanish mother land", but in modernizing its governance in the Island, no wonder the Cuban patriotic vanguard, lead by José Martí, fought against their ideas so hard. On January 31st, 1893 in one of his extraordinary speeches, Martí said: "… it was the particular case that those claiming the political dogma of evolution were simply retrogrades who kept for a people formed in the revolution the solutions imagined before it… ". (v)

However, the idea of supporting in Cuba a third force - moderate, centered or third way – gain strength in the U.S. foreign policy in the late 50’s, with the goal of preventing the 26 de Julio Movement come into power, something that became an obsession for the Eisenhower administration by yearend 1958. This tendency should be equidistant between Batista and Fidel Castro and its development was stimulated in both the political and the military fields. The CIA local station in Havana was the first to handle this idea and later the main executor. Officer David Atlee Philips confirms so in his autobiographical book The Night Watch, when he highlights that James Noel – head of the CIA station in Havana - had informed him in one of his few frequent meetings, on his recommendation to the U.S. government of discreetly sponsoring the action of a third political force in Cuba, "a group between Castro in the left and Batista in the right (…) ". (vi)

In February 1958, William Morgan a North American secret service agent had joined the II National Front of Escambray lead by Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo. His mission was to become the second in command of that guerrilla, something he achieved in no time as well as his rank as Commander. Morgan would not be the only agent the United States infiltrated in that area with the intention of stimulate a third guerilla force that could oppose at some point the forces from Sierra Maestra lead by Fidel Castro. (vii) The United States was also involved in other complots where different names of personalities who could join a political option that snatched off the hands of Fidel Castro the revolutionary victory, among them: the colonel Ramón Barquín, Justo Carrillo, head of the Montecristi Group, and Manuel Antonio, Tony, de Varona. Still on December 23, 1958 at a meeting of the National Security Council, Eisenhower expressed his hope in the growth, strength and influences of a "third force". (viii)

The creation of a "third forces" it was not only promoted by the United States, but also by some domestic politicians. "The Third Force – highlights Jorge Ibarra Guitart - was a movement of private civic institutions that representing the feeling of important sectors of the bourgeoisie and the small bourgeoisie promoted peace measures and reconciliation with the régime. The instigator, behind the curtains was José Miró Cardona who from the Friends of the Republic Society had already planned the tactics of mobilizing bourgeois institutions to force the régime to reach an agreement. This was the time to try such tactics, because there were circumstances that favored it: the bourgeoisie, when noticing that with every passing day more revolutionary organizations gain ground was worried by the eminent threat that represented for their political and economic interests, the development of a civil war with a popular participation". (ix)

As it was impossible for the United States to prevent the victory of the Cuban Revolution and the coming into power of 26 de Julio forces, in the early months of 1959, Washington’s main objective was to support and encourage personalities who within the revolutionary government were considerate "moderate", of center, as opposed to those who were qualified as "extremist", to avoid that the Revolution did not have a deep social reach. (x)

When Fernando Martínez Heredia, highlights that today in Cuba there is a right nationalism with ambitions of center that has "a cultural accumulation to which refer (xi), he is mentioning the long history of that nationalism that has as antecedent the political attitudes of autonomism; which in the years of Bourgeois Neocolonial Republic admitted and defended the dominance. The U.S. government has used it many times with the purpose of braking, avoiding or achieving situations after the revolution that kept safe the structures of capitalist dominance in Cuba, under better permission.

Today we see that right nationalism that is stimulated by those who oppose us, under the deceiving cloth of centrism. It pursues the sole objective that the desperate attempt of restoring capitalism in Cuba. Once again, it will be failed attempt, because the main obstacle this trend has encountered is that its ideas have never sunk into the people. That people which throughout history has embraced the independent, patriotic, national-revolutionary and anti-imperialist tradition; never that of autonomism, annexionism or right nationalism.

NOTES

(i) See text of Esteban Morales: The Cuban counterrevolution has never existed, in: Esteban Morales and Elier Ramírez, Approaches to the conflict United States - Cuba, Political Publisher, Havana, 2015, pp.363-367. Morales wonders in this work if this counterrevolution can be considered Cuban, as it practically committed suicide after being born assuming an agenda imposed by the U.S. government.

(iii) Speech on September 3, 1979 in the opening session of the NOAL Summit with venue in Havana, Fidel expressed: "What can be refuted to Cuba? That it’s a socialist country? Yes, we are a socialist country (APPLAUSES), but we don’t seek to impose our ideas and our system on anyone neither inside nor outside the Movement. We don't have anything to be ashamed of for being socialist! That we made a radical revolution in Cuba? Yes, we are revolutionary radicals, but we don't seek to impose anybody, and much less to the No Aligned Movement, our radicalism". See: : http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1979/esp/f030979e.html

(iv) See Elier Ramírez Cañedo and Carlos Joane Rosario Grasso, The autonomism in the crucial hours of the Cuban Nation, Social Sciences Editorial house, Havana, 2008.

For some time now has been brewing, essentially in the digital media, the idea of a “political centrism” in today's Cuba as part of the United States strategies to subvert the Cuban socialist pattern, despite the huge failures and slandering of the so-called “Cuban counterrevolution”. (i) A piece of news revealed by Wikileaks in 2010, showed as Jonathan Farrar, Head of the Interests Section of Washington in Havana back then, informed to the Department of State on April 15, 2009 how that "opposition" was really disconnected from the Cuban reality, it didn't have any influence power over the youths, and was more concerned about the money than in taking its platforms to wider sectors of society. (ii)

The political centrism in its origin is a concept of geometric root: the equidistant point to all ends. Supposedly it would be a political position placed between the left and right, between socialism and capitalism, a third way that "brings together the best ideas" in the ends that give it life and where moderation rises against any type of radicalism. Lenin qualified this posture of “treacherous utopism as a result of the bourgeois reformism". No doubt those denominated third ways, or centrisms have never been a revolutionary option, but strategies to establish, save, remake, modernize or restore capitalism.

When moderation is reconsidered in front of the Cuban revolutionary radicalism – this means going to the roots, nothing related to extremism which is another thing - (iii), I can’t help but finding certain analogies between that centrism that today is attempted to articulate in Cuba, with the nineteenth century autonomism.

The autonomism as a political trend was born in the first half of the XIX century, but it becomes a political party starting since 1878, as one of the fruits of the revolution of 1868. (iv) It was a trend that shared historical time with independentism, traditionalism, and annexionism. It was the trend par excellence of moderation, of evolution, enemy of the radical Cuban independentists. They also took a position "equidistant", between the traditionalism - the defense of the status quo - and the independence, but in defining moments, they joined traditionalism to brake and attack the revolution, which they considered the worst of all evils. Famous personalities of autonomism turned to annexionist ideas after the North American intervention-occupation in Cuba. Its main leaders were recognized for their intellectual skills, they were great speakers, but with an elite thinking, essentially bourgeois, therefore they could never rallied Cuban masses behind them. The Cuban people back then what needed the least was laboratory ideas. It was for this reason that when the struggle for independence restarted in 1895, the autonomist party was completely out of place in new national reality. The autonomism defended a moderate nationalism that excluded the masses. Their main goals was not severing the bond with "the Spanish mother land", but in modernizing its governance in the Island, no wonder the Cuban patriotic vanguard, lead by José Martí, fought against their ideas so hard. On January 31st, 1893 in one of his extraordinary speeches, Martí said: "… it was the particular case that those claiming the political dogma of evolution were simply retrogrades who kept for a people formed in the revolution the solutions imagined before it… ". (v)

However, the idea of supporting in Cuba a third force - moderate, centered or third way – gain strength in the U.S. foreign policy in the late 50’s, with the goal of preventing the 26 de Julio Movement come into power, something that became an obsession for the Eisenhower administration by yearend 1958. This tendency should be equidistant between Batista and Fidel Castro and its development was stimulated in both the political and the military fields. The CIA local station in Havana was the first to handle this idea and later the main executor. Officer David Atlee Philips confirms so in his autobiographical book The Night Watch, when he highlights that James Noel – head of the CIA station in Havana - had informed him in one of his few frequent meetings, on his recommendation to the U.S. government of discreetly sponsoring the action of a third political force in Cuba, "a group between Castro in the left and Batista in the right (…) ". (vi)

In February 1958, William Morgan a North American secret service agent had joined the II National Front of Escambray lead by Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo. His mission was to become the second in command of that guerrilla, something he achieved in no time as well as his rank as Commander. Morgan would not be the only agent the United States infiltrated in that area with the intention of stimulate a third guerilla force that could oppose at some point the forces from Sierra Maestra lead by Fidel Castro. (vii) The United States was also involved in other complots where different names of personalities who could join a political option that snatched off the hands of Fidel Castro the revolutionary victory, among them: the colonel Ramón Barquín, Justo Carrillo, head of the Montecristi Group, and Manuel Antonio, Tony, de Varona. Still on December 23, 1958 at a meeting of the National Security Council, Eisenhower expressed his hope in the growth, strength and influences of a "third force". (viii)

The creation of a "third forces" it was not only promoted by the United States, but also by some domestic politicians. "The Third Force – highlights Jorge Ibarra Guitart - was a movement of private civic institutions that representing the feeling of important sectors of the bourgeoisie and the small bourgeoisie promoted peace measures and reconciliation with the régime. The instigator, behind the curtains was José Miró Cardona who from the Friends of the Republic Society had already planned the tactics of mobilizing bourgeois institutions to force the régime to reach an agreement. This was the time to try such tactics, because there were circumstances that favored it: the bourgeoisie, when noticing that with every passing day more revolutionary organizations gain ground was worried by the eminent threat that represented for their political and economic interests, the development of a civil war with a popular participation". (ix)

As it was impossible for the United States to prevent the victory of the Cuban Revolution and the coming into power of 26 de Julio forces, in the early months of 1959, Washington’s main objective was to support and encourage personalities who within the revolutionary government were considerate "moderate", of center, as opposed to those who were qualified as "extremist", to avoid that the Revolution did not have a deep social reach. (x)

When Fernando Martínez Heredia, highlights that today in Cuba there is a right nationalism with ambitions of center that has "a cultural accumulation to which refer (xi), he is mentioning the long history of that nationalism that has as antecedent the political attitudes of autonomism; which in the years of Bourgeois Neocolonial Republic admitted and defended the dominance. The U.S. government has used it many times with the purpose of braking, avoiding or achieving situations after the revolution that kept safe the structures of capitalist dominance in Cuba, under better permission.

Today we see that right nationalism that is stimulated by those who oppose us, under the deceiving cloth of centrism. It pursues the sole objective that the desperate attempt of restoring capitalism in Cuba. Once again, it will be failed attempt, because the main obstacle this trend has encountered is that its ideas have never sunk into the people. That people which throughout history has embraced the independent, patriotic, national-revolutionary and anti-imperialist tradition; never that of autonomism, annexionism or right nationalism.

NOTES

(i) See text of Esteban Morales: The Cuban counterrevolution has never existed, in: Esteban Morales and Elier Ramírez, Approaches to the conflict United States - Cuba, Political Publisher, Havana, 2015, pp.363-367. Morales wonders in this work if this counterrevolution can be considered Cuban, as it practically committed suicide after being born assuming an agenda imposed by the U.S. government.

(iii) Speech on September 3, 1979 in the opening session of the NOAL Summit with venue in Havana, Fidel expressed: "What can be refuted to Cuba? That it’s a socialist country? Yes, we are a socialist country (APPLAUSES), but we don’t seek to impose our ideas and our system on anyone neither inside nor outside the Movement. We don't have anything to be ashamed of for being socialist! That we made a radical revolution in Cuba? Yes, we are revolutionary radicals, but we don't seek to impose anybody, and much less to the No Aligned Movement, our radicalism". See: : http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1979/esp/f030979e.html

(iv) See Elier Ramírez Cañedo and Carlos Joane Rosario Grasso, The autonomism in the crucial hours of the Cuban Nation, Social Sciences Editorial house, Havana, 2008.

Categories

In Sancti Spiritus People also Shouted ´I am Fidel´

Your browser does not support the video tag.

Cubasí.cu interviewed translator Aracelia del Valle from Escambray website on people’s reaction for the journey of the caravan carrying the remains of Commander in Chief Fidel Castro to Santiago de Cuba.